"Indirect
democracy"
Jayalalitha's election campaign is a mere help/service to her party
members. She must have asked for votes by saying that she would be
the Chief Minister if her party was elected. This is the predicament
with respect to those who miss the logic in the whole argument. All
that should have been accomplished in this Landmark judgement was
to announce the practice of projecting candidates as Chief Ministers
and Prime Ministers a priori to the constitution of assembly as illegal.
It undermines the prerogative and usurps the right of the member of
the assembly/parliament to elect the Leader of the Government. Our
democracy is not a presidential form of democracy wherein the President
or Head of the Government is directly elected by the people. In an
"Indirect Democracy" like the one we follow, the representatives decide
the leader of the House. Unfortunately, projecting the head of the
government in an election campaign has become the norm of the day
because of psychophancy in our politics. The judgement should have
highlighted this mix-up in our system and should have clearly mentioned
that during the election the head of the government should not be
projected. It is like putting the cart before the bullock.
People vs. Constitution
If the above argument is valid, where is the question of Jaya claiming
her right to form the government or where is the logic in claiming
that people voted for Jayalalitha? If this is what our Constitution
says where is the controversy about people being subjugated by the
Constitution or where is the need to stress that Constitution is above
people in a democracy. Constitution and people are one and the same.
There is no question of separating these two and it is ridiculous
to find an answer for who/which is superior of the other. Constitution
is the tool in our hands to administer ourselves. This should have
been highlighted in the judgement to set right the controversy. The
controversy is because of the improper understanding of our democratic
system. If the logic of "indirect democracy" that is talked about
here is not correct, again this judgement should have gone into such
details to clear the confusion as to whether people and constitution
were at loggerheads tin the case relating to Jayalalitha's appointment
Uniformity in Law
As per the law, the convicted person after the sentence period can
come back to politics. The disqualification to contest the election
is only for six years. This is also only if the sentence period is
more than two years. If Jayalalitha had been sentenced for two years,
she could have still contested the election. Is it not funny? If a
government servant says a collector indulges in a crime and he/she
is punished for more than two years imprisonment. Is he or she not
summarily dismissed from the job? Would he or she be allowed to come
back as collector after six years? Is it not an irony that the yardsticks
are less stringent for lawmakers than it is for one who is to implement
or abide the law? Similarly, if a government servant is charge sheeted,
he/she is suspended before the inquiry starts. This is applicable
even if the accused is not in a powerful position to destroy the evidences.
Whereas for political leaders, only if they are convicted, they are
debarred from contesting elections. During the course of trial, they
would be happily indulging in destroying evidences or forging evidences.
Do they not sound idiotic? Why should there be different yardsticks
when our constitution claims that everyone is equal before the law.
In fact, the law should be more stringent for those who are at an
elevated level. The People's Representation Act should be amended
to prohibit even those politicians from contesting election who are
accused in a charge sheet based on a prima facie evidence. For instance,
Ms Jayalalitha is convicted only in TANSI case whereas there are about
more than half a dozen cases (Pleasant Stay, London hotel, Coal Import
Deal, Disproportionate Wealth Case, Colour TV deal, Receipt of dollar
cheques from Singapore etc) where she is charge-sheeted and the trial
is pending before the court of law. This Supreme Court should have
gone into greater details of this case and should have passed a final
word as to whether the Constitution needs an amendment in the case
of accused and charge sheeted, and who figure in the First information
Reports. The other day the Law Minister Mr Arun Jaitley has confessed
that there is a lack of consensus among political parties to amend
the law in such a way so that even the charge sheeted persons would
be prohibited from contesting elections. Also, the Election Commission
distinguished the case involving Mr Pillai in Kerala from the case
of Ms Jayalalitha while scrutinizing the nomination papers. Mr Pillai
was a sitting MLA and a sitting MLA seems to have some sort of immunity.
If this understanding is correct, we need to look into this issue
also. Absolute uniformity in law should be the ultimate standard.
"Make it Explicit"
The Constitution talks about the qualification of the MLA /MP alone.
It does not stipulate anything for the Minister/Chief Minister/Prime
Minister. Many experts say that silence in constitution has more meaning
than what it spells out. This would have made sense when we had patriotic
and service-minded leaders. Now politics has become a profession to
mint and launder money. It is better for us to explicitly mention
the qualifications for a Minister/CM/PM also in the Constitution and
also clearly mention about the causes that would lead to disqualification
to become a Minister /CM / PM. . ....more
